Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right
FoxNews.com ^ | 20-June-2014 | Dr. Robert Jeffress

Posted on 06/30/2014 8:20:40 AM PDT by topher

Monday’s ruling in the case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby is an important victory for religious liberty for people of all faiths, regardless of what secularists will argue in their criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision. Liberals have tried to obfuscate the real issue in the case by insisting that it was about the merits of employer-mandated healthcare, the propriety of contraception, or the right of a woman to have an abortion.

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; hobbylobby; prolife; scotus

1 posted on 06/30/2014 8:20:40 AM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Basically, Hobby Lobby did not object to contraceptives but to contraceptives that cause abortion...


2 posted on 06/30/2014 8:22:28 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

The SCOTUS opinion is a narrow decision affecting privately-held corporations being forced to pay for employees’ abortificients. It does not protect publicly-held corporations, nor corporations whose religious beliefs oppose hiring open homosexuals.

And Traitorobama could well order his HHS gestapo to directly fund abortificients to those employees whose companies do not provide them.


3 posted on 06/30/2014 8:27:50 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse

Here ya go: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf


4 posted on 06/30/2014 8:29:26 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher

The Obama HHS will react to the ruling by issuing regulations requiring fedgov to pay for these drugs.

If they do that, how is it any different from the Obama administration telling those corporations that they aren’t paying for the meds because the insurance company is paying for them?


5 posted on 06/30/2014 8:29:42 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

SC wants to make sure that they don’t step on religious freedoms in anticipation of shariah law once Islam is made the law of the land. Hey the government should have the right to lop off your head if you don’t convert to Islam or fail to obey.../s


6 posted on 06/30/2014 8:30:56 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

I didn’t see what the ruling was 5-4? 7-2?


7 posted on 06/30/2014 8:30:56 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey (One man one vote is a big fail, when the "one" man is an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

All contraceptives cause an abortion....even when taken to supposedly not fertilize the egg.


8 posted on 06/30/2014 8:32:18 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Hogwash.


9 posted on 06/30/2014 8:35:12 AM PDT by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 12th_Monkey
I didn’t see what the ruling was 5-4? 7-2?

It was 5-4 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor dissenting).

10 posted on 06/30/2014 8:35:53 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

And employees of Hobby Lobby could still seek abortions and those other contraceptives out of their own budgets.


11 posted on 06/30/2014 8:37:15 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

I believe the hyde amendment should prevent govt from paying.


12 posted on 06/30/2014 8:37:46 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

thanks, i should have scrolled down furthur on FR, found it their.


13 posted on 06/30/2014 8:39:09 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey (One man one vote is a big fail, when the "one" man is an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain

Condoms?


14 posted on 06/30/2014 8:41:42 AM PDT by al baby (Hi MomÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Hobby Lobby, unfortunately, offers contraceptives. I guess they are that part of the Christian Church that believes Contraception is okay.

I believe around 1910 the Protestants started to allow Contraception, just as some parts of the Protestant Church sanction same-sex marriage

15 posted on 06/30/2014 8:42:16 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topher

The opinion of the minority four is staggering. In short, govt do whatever they wish to do.


16 posted on 06/30/2014 8:54:29 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Really? With all do respect. I think that’s a stretch.

noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.

3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def 1 ) .

4.
an immature and nonviable fetus.


17 posted on 06/30/2014 8:56:52 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: what's up

I hope you’re right, but I have my doubts.


18 posted on 06/30/2014 9:19:26 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher

The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!

Putting aside for the moment that “statist left” and “logical” should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the “free” chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.

At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal “Tsk, tsk”, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.

Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to – where else – MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.

Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: “It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”

And before you hit the reply button with “What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?”

You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!

The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.

And while we’re discussing “hypocrisy”, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?

That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.

And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: “A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways”.

What does that say about 21st century America?

Just sayin’

Dick Bachert
6 30 2014


19 posted on 06/30/2014 9:28:06 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (Ignorance is NOT BLISS. It is the ROAD TO SERFDOM! We're on a ROAD TRIP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

20 posted on 06/30/2014 9:37:36 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse
The SCOTUS opinion is a narrow decision affecting privately-held corporations being forced to pay for employees’ abortificients. It does not protect publicly-held corporations, nor corporations whose religious beliefs oppose hiring open homosexuals.

Unlike the lib justices, the majority issued an opinion that is no broader than the issues before the court. It did not decide one way or the other whether the ruling applies to public corporations because no public corporation was a party to the lawsuit. The logical extension of the Hobby Lobby opinion is not whether the ruling applies to publically- traded corporations, but whether it allows a private business to decline work because of deeply held religious beliefs -- such as refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

21 posted on 06/30/2014 9:42:24 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher

Will be interesting to see how they deal with a Catholic-owned business that objects to all contraception.


22 posted on 06/30/2014 10:29:45 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson